I think most people bought a new console to play games on it and even if some of them prefer mega budget AAA titles to the exclusion of all else, those indie titles ultimately have no direct impact on those types of games also being released. It isn't an 'either/or' proposition.
This is probably exactly it. For some posters it's clear that anything relating to the actual topic at hand is a secondary consideration to defending the honour of Microsoft.
The sweeping generalisations of independently developed games that goes on around here sometimes truly does come across as wilfull ignorance of the most pathetic kind.
Please you just posted this in a Khan Academy thread in regards to XBOX so save the lecture about being ignorant and pathetic.
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=142567042&postcount=23
Also, 47 games. Thats a whole lot of games , makes you think if quantity is taking a priority over quality here.
Is he wrong within this thread?
Most of the indies could run on PS3 just fine.
Have I been?
If you want to stick closer to the topic: I think that 47 indie games for PS4 is not a huge deal for a lot of people because, yes, they are just not AAA. Maybe there'll be one or two in there that will make a lot of money.
Xbox policy is bad, but there must be reasons for having it, otherwise it would be gone a long time ago.
Not without a LOT of work. Part of the reason indie games have exploded onto the scene this gen is because the consoles are so PC-like. The PS3 is still a nightmare for indie developers, while the PS4 is a breath of fresh air.
It's not all about what the hardware is capable of, it's also how friendly to those developers the hardware is. Which the PS3 never was.
Originally Posted by MrJonnyBigBoss
You see things in a negative light. I read his opinion and welcomed it because different opinions makes this world far more interesting.
Plus, I agree with him. If I had a choice I'd take one big release over 40 indies. Then again, I'm into long lasting games more than anything.
I only share this because this thread argues that it's a huge deal. I see if a bit differently, but meh.
REPLY TO THE ABOVE:
Indie is not a genre. long lasting games, likewise, is not a genre. There are long indie games and there are short AAA games. It's an ignorant and dismissive attitude that shows that the person stating it knows nothing of the games offered.
Cheers, Guvnah~Still composing their "rant". I'm hoping it's a facemelting, balls-to-the-wall destructo-rant.
Has anyone heard from AbsintheGames? Was really looking forward to reading their post.
Still composing their "rant". I'm hoping it's a facemelting, balls-to-the-wall destructo-rant.
Please you just posted this in a Khan Academy thread in regards to XBOX so save the lecture about being ignorant and pathetic.
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=142567042&postcount=23
This is the problem with the attitude of posters who defend indies do hard that they don't consider what the poster says. He doesn't say indies is a genre, nor does he say the long games are a genre. He is generalizing, a bit awkwardly for sure, but there are tags which are attached to indie-game development for a reason. For every long-lasting indie game, you get a dozen Monument Valleys (awesome game, must play, but it's beyond the point), for every "nice looking" indie, you have hundreds of releases that scream: cheap, and it's valid to not like that.
People like summer blockbusters and big AAA releases over indies, who don't really scratch that itch. CoD cannot be indie, or Last of Us, there are tangible differences. Indies can be in the same "genre" shooters, adventure, but there are obvious differences which will differentiate AAA and Indies within a genre.
I also somewhat agree that a AAA release, like the Witcher or Order is preferable to all these 47 indies which are wildcards. I'd rather have them than not, of course, but none of those is a system seller, it's only a "plus" over Xbox and their weird attitude.
Was gathering more information from other GAF indies so probably will take a few days if others respond slowly and/or NDA work around wording is involvedHas anyone heard from AbsintheGames? Was really looking forward to reading their post.
TypuyBaranIt's not personal... Just surprising how one can scream you are ignorant while getting world up about a juniors personal opinion that indy games mostly suck... Again, in my opinion.
But you bring up an excellent point...😃
Given I've been pretty active in the last few pages I'm of a mind to hope that I trust I'm not tarred with some blind rabid defence of "indies" brush to the exclusion of other peoples opinions.
I've been reading the thread since the start and generally most reaction to this clause has been well thought out and fairly civil. Its been said time and again the point of the OP is not to opine on whether you prefer large budget games or not. The OP has been created to show that the parity clause which prevents independent development studios choosing when they launch their games on this single platform of all currently available platforms is not only hurting those developers but significantly reducing the potential content on that single platform.
Whether or not someone cares for small budget games is moot. Most rebuttals to people adding this has been to remind them of this fact and to point out (where its present) the hypocrisy of statements which also allude to a liking of "games" but only those which are of a sufficiently high budget or people that suggest this comes down to some list war or whether its a "selling point".
What's more the clause we're discussing is not a case of one thing preventing the other, "preferring a witcher to 40 indie games" (though to me personally is a bizarre opinion to have, though one people are welcome to have) isn't even a point worth bringing up in the thread since its not the point and no-one, not even Phil Spencer is claiming that by getting 40 more indie games we'll not get a Witcher. Not wanting to backseat moderate but one assumes posts adding that would belong in the "Who prefers AAA to Indies" thread.
Let my simplify my statement: if somebody doesn't like indies, it doesn't mean they treat it as genre. It's not against you, but shitting on people because "indies is not a genre" was done a lot of times in this thread.
When I see a personsayinghe/she doesn't like indies, mostly they don't care for ugly-looking but "awesome" games, like Rogue Legacy or Super Meatboy. Some people need more than gameplay, they need a whole package which indies always lack. That's why I think Witcher is better than 40 games: I'd rather have one game in a solid package with sound, graphics, story etc. over a chance of better gameplay. It's not enough for me.
Sounds like 47 games I won't care about. Haven't really gotten into indie games. None really look that good to me.
The question isn't whether or not indie games are shitty.** It's irrelevant. Period.
If that's the hill you want to die on, go ahead.
It's whether or not MS is actively encouraging a policy that hurts developers and gamers, especially in regards to their own ecosystem.
That's it.
**tagging all indie development with that moniker is absolute nonsense and anyone espousing that should be ashamed.
Let my simplify my statement: if somebody doesn't like indies, it doesn't mean they treat it as genre. It's not against you, but shitting on people because "indies is not a genre" was done a lot of times in this thread.
When I see a personsayinghe/she doesn't like indies, mostly they don't care for ugly-looking but "awesome" games, like Rogue Legacy or Super Meatboy. Some people need more than gameplay, they need a whole package which indies always lack. That's why I think Witcher is better than 40 games: I'd rather have one game in a solid package with sound, graphics, story etc. over a chance of better gameplay. It's not enough for me.
Let my simplify my statement: if somebody doesn't like indies, it doesn't mean they treat it as genre. It's not against you, but shitting on people because "indies is not a genre" was done a lot of times in this thread.
When I see a personsayinghe/she doesn't like indies, mostly they don't care for ugly-looking but "awesome" games, like Rogue Legacy or Super Meatboy. Some people need more than gameplay, they need a whole package which indies always lack. That's why I think Witcher is better than 40 games: I'd rather have one game in a solid package with sound, graphics, story etc. over a chance of better gameplay. It's not enough for me.
As for the XboX clause, there's not really much new to be said. People have rightfully pointed out that it's stupid.
Here's my opinion: Microsoft is just in a bad position with the clause since the launch of Xbox One. If they don't enforce parity, they won't any indie games released on Xbox first rather than on PS4, because PS4 has a larger install base and indies will naturally go there.
By keeping the clause they actually get to make some developers think that losing XboX share of the market is not worth it. Then they'll have to develop game first for Xbox One and Microsoft gets exclusives. It's basically a scaremongering tactic, and I don't like it, but it makes sense in the situation Microsoft is in with the indie community. Without the clause, even the games Xbox has now would probably be first on PS4.
Also dropping the clause probably has bad PR coming with it, which is not good for Microsoft right now, especiall during the holiday season when they actually sell some consoles.
All in all, this might get dropped sooner rather than later, because clearly the tactic is not working very well, but quiet months, like January or February would be better to make the announcement.
Fuck yes chubigans, I'm so glad you made this topic. I made one earlier in the year and there was less visibility and some concern it wouldn't impact XBO as seriously as it is.
But there is now a massive, insane disparity in the amount of indie developers confirmed for the platform and indie games announced for it. There is no longer any doubt.
This is fucked up for everyone involved
+ Fucked up for Microsoft, who receives less revenue due to less games on platform
+ Fucked up for XBO gamers, who have less great games to choose from
+ Occasionally fucked up for PS4 gamers, on the rare time a dev does choose to delay a game for parity release.
+ Fucked up for indie developers especially, who are already some of the most vulnerable devs in the industry and have to make impossible choices due to the parity clause.
There is no other side of this argument, so it's sad to see Phil Spencer try to hold so tightly onto it while others defend him. It's a huge joke.
It's always been ridiculous when people say the PS4 has no games.
The Xbox One having "better" games is opinion.
The PS4 having more games is fact.
I would consider Journey an indie title. In the final year of development the studio was paying everything out of pocket and a lot of staff went unpaid. By the end of development the studio went bankrupt.
That's not how it works. Going over time and budget doesn't make a game indie, that makes no sense at all. It just means the company was poorly run.
Journey was Sony published, funded and owned. It's as much an indie game as Bloodborne, Ratchet & Clank and The Order.
This is horseshit. Painting indies as all of them being some artsy retro experience is as bad as painting them as a genre.Let my simplify my statement: if somebody doesn't like indies, it doesn't mean they treat it as genre. It's not against you, but shitting on people because "indies is not a genre" was done a lot of times in this thread.
When I see a personsayinghe/she doesn't like indies, mostly they don't care for ugly-looking but "awesome" games, like Rogue Legacy or Super Meatboy. Some people need more than gameplay, they need a whole package which indies always lack. That's why I think Witcher is better than 40 games: I'd rather have one game in a solid package with sound, graphics, story etc. over a chance of better gameplay. It's not enough for me.
Even if you don't like indies as a rule, those indie devs may end up making big successful games one day and it's important for console makers to create a proper ecosystem where they can be discovered and thrive.
If we only ever got AAA games, it would be a wasteland of derivative gameplay ideas and mimicry whenever a new trend begins. Probably only a third or less of games I play qualify as "indie" but I still appreciate their existence and occasionally get absorbed in one for dozens of hours.
Let my simplify my statement: if somebody doesn't like indies, it doesn't mean they treat it as genre. It's not against you, but shitting on people because "indies is not a genre" was done a lot of times in this thread.
I expect not only indies but some third-party games go only for PS4... mainly the Japan developers.
This is horseshit. Painting indies as all of them being some artsy retro experience is as bad as painting them as a genre.
If I follow your thinking right that its indicative of Sony simply allowing "anything" on the store rather than MS "curating" their store page Chubigans addressed this in the OP and Amirox quoted some (admittedly old) but startling figures later on page 1.
It really isnt a case of getting better "quality" games or not
Apologies if thats not what you meant, thats how I read it anyway
People sell console games made in GameMaker Studio?!
When a developer announces their game is up to them, but I can say that there are hundreds of games in development for Xbox One right now from developers in the ID program.
So this was posted in the IDARB thread,
Something to chew over.
I actually didn't Quote, but some people were banned for saying they don't like Indies, then Amri0x came in saying that they are covering the same niches as AAA games and not liking indies is like not liking games, other people bash them because they lump indies in one "genre" which I disagree with. I think that most people, myself included bought a new-gen console for fullHD, graphically intense blockbuster gaming, and their dismissal of indies is justified. Most of the indies could run on PS3 just fine.
If you want to stick closer to the topic: I think that 47 indie games for PS4 is not a huge deal for a lot of people because, yes, they are just not AAA. Maybe there'll be one or two in there that will make a lot of money.
Xbox policy is bad, but there must be reasons for having it, otherwise it would be gone a long time ago.
I appreciate Chris speaking up but they really still need to work on communication outside of twitter posts. Major Nelson is doing a great job with the update videos so maybe that is an avenue they can explore. I get why ID@xbox might exist as far as giving out dev kits, managing tools and all of that but I still don't understand why it's a thing. It seems like they wanted "games are games" to be the message this gen by getting rid of XBLA, but then they go and create this whole other silo for games.
If there's one thing I can say, it's that the lack of communication is far outside of their control over on the ID@Xbox side.
I know if it were up to them they'd be in this thread clarifying some things. But you can thank MS for refusing them the chance to talk about it openly. I get why some things might be NDAd, but man, what a mess.
I get it, major policy changes take time to get right. Lots of moving parts, legal side, etc.
This is the last clearly wrong policy Microsoft is still holding onto.
Sony is the publisher of Journey, and owns this IP. It had a major publisher funding it, refunding delays, porting it to other consoles and helping with marketing and several other things, because as I remember it had a nicely 'long' credits staff.Also, personally, I wouldn't put games like Journey and No Man's Sky into indie pile.